Epson 9600 Prints Horrible!

[jeff_singer]

I just got back a Epson 9600 13"x13" b&w print of a Nikon 8000 scanned negative and all I can say is I am thoroughly unimpressed. It was printed on a 9600 with epson paper (I forget the exact paper at the moment) and Ultrachrome inks (photo black). The operator had my darkroom print to go by so he can see how everything should look.

 

WRT to the sharpness the print... that isn't too bad. It was a good scan of a very sharp image. The sharpness holds even when viewing close... still not as sharp as the darkroom print, but close. Looking at the eyes the print is fine, but detail gets lost in things like hair.

 

The big problem is the resolution. If you are looking at the print from arms length or further then the resolution holds its own when compared to the darkroom print. But anything closer and it gets bad. I don't see any "lines" on the print, but I can see the little dots quite clearly. I've seen this in both color and B&W prints. Tiny details get lost that are clearly there in the traditional print.

 

Now, on to the color and tone... well, the image I gave was a straight B&W print with black blacks and white whites and a good range of tones in between. The print I got back looked very brown... like and extreme sepia toning had been done to it. The lab said that was close as he could come to the B&W print I gave him as his "target."

 

I've seen comments on how these printers produce better results than a darkroom print and I don't see how that can be possible. I can understand how that opinion can be made if the difference were very slight, but from what I'm looking at we aren't even in the same ball park, not even the same league... it isn't even the same sport!

 

So, is this what can be expected or did I get a VERY bad print? Like I said... it holds its own (baring the color and tone) from arms length away and further. But, I don't see how people can say they are getting prints that equal darkroom prints. I can see how another operator may be able get the color and tones better, but I don't see how the resolution and sharpness can get any better. And, if this is as good as it gets how can people like Greg Gorman be using this printer for their gallery shows (color and B&W)?

 

Jeff

 

http://www.jeffsingerphotography.com

[leonard_evens]

I don't have any direct experience with this printer, but I just checked its specifications. It comes in a 6 color and 7 color version. My Epson 1280 with the 6 color system produces b/w prints like what you describe. I can almost see the dots with my naked eye, and I can see them easily with slight magnification. This is very different from what happens with the color inks. Even under moderate magnification, the dots are not obvious. In order to produce high quality b/w prints with the 1280 and similar printers, one must use special b/w ink sets, and I am told that the prints produced that way can surpass conventional darkroom b/w prints. But then the printer has to be dedicated to b/w since reinstalling the color cartridges is cumbersome, requiring some flushing of the inks. The Epson 7 color printers, on the other hand, have two shades of gray, and they apparently do a much better job on b/w prints.

 

Perhaps this is a 6 color Epson 9600, in which case it shouldn't be used for commercial b/w printing.

[scott_eaton]

<I>But, I don't see how people can say they are getting prints that equal darkroom prints.</i><P>The word 'darkroom' comes from an ancient Egyptian translation meaning 'process that only includes B/W materials since nobody really prints color other than commercial minilabs'. Makes you wonder why dichroic enlargers were invented then if the only type of printing you do in a darkroom is B/W :^)<P>Sorry, I'm just teasing you Jeff. You probably aren't seeing things and I'm not disagreeing with you at all. Just trying to make a point to set a reference for expectations.<P>My Epson 9600 prints will kick the snot out of about anything you can produce in a darkroom - in COLOR. For B/W, mmmm, Epson Ultrachrome inks on coated paper? I tried this and wasn't overwhelmed. Print looked artificial, not neutral, and as you saw, just wasn't as smooth as a conventional B/W print. Using a Nikon 8000 also doesn't help and bumps you up into the next film speed grain category as well. I hate that thing for B/W work.<P>Most of the really good commercial work B/W work is either being printed on quad-tones, piezos, or at the least on cotton papers like Velvet. I'm not sure what the lab you used is doing, but it sounds like Ultachrome inks on a glossy or semi glossy paper. That's not a really popular combination for mono work my friend. My beater Epson 820 printing to Somerset velvet in greyscale mode will smoke a 9600 running that kind of combination for B/W.<P>There are a couple of labs that can handle B/W film printed via ink-jets. West Coast Imaging is one of them and on their site they don't seem to encourage B/W 9600 work with standard color inks and papers.

[dsc]

Hi Jeff,

 

I've had 16x20 B&W's printed on the 96000, from XP2 scanned on a Nikon Coolscan 4000. My shot was somewhat blurred to begin with (dancing couple in twirl), so I can't comment as to resolution. The sepia you see is, however, seemingly from a bad print.

 

I own the 2200, and can't figure out how the local shop with the 9600 printed my B&W on matte paper with *no* color shifts. I understand they use the UC inks, but I can't get my prints anywhere near neutral, and they did an excellent job. I should note that the guys running the machine don't seem especially skilled, shall we say; fresh out of the local college, with no idea what Color Space to use. I'm frankly quite surprised by the quality, and their prints (both color and B&W) is one reason which encouraged me to purchase the 2200. Their B&W print also seems void of metamerism issues that plague my 2200. Too bad I haven't figured it out yet ... Scott: have you bought your 2200 yet? I'm still waiting for your advice! :):):)

 

On the other hand, I'm not sure if they're using a 3rd party RIP or the original Epson drivers, but know they are printing from Photoshop 7.0.

 

I'd suggest trying another lab with the 9600 if you have that option. I've only printed the one print in B&W, but am sure I'm going back to print my other work which I couldn't do in my darkroom.

 

Best,

[brady_dillsworth]

In regards to the color shifts in the BW prints I feel I have found a solution. I have had around 25 BW's made from 4X6-16X20. I happened to be talking with the man who runs the printer when a customer came in to have two BW 11X14's made of a model. After both were printed they suffered from SEVERE color shifts, one was really blue and the other really green. I asked him how he set up his BW print, and he said he just made the mode grayscale. What I have had huge success with is to use image>adjust>desaturate, or image>calculations in Photoshop. Then keep the mode in RGB and ask if the operator will make you a 4X6 proof when you bring the CD. The guy I work with is more than happy to proof an image on paper, and to allow me to fine tune the color on his monitor. So I recomend you go back, talk to him about getting a higher resolution print made and a proofing it. The 9600 is a pretty high resolution printer, so I assume he had the settings pretty low to conserve ink. I think he was lying about the sepia being as close to BW as he could come, if HE could only come that close, then it is really pretty pathetic. Also make sure the resolution of your print was high enough, I have set my images to LxW at 270ppi, and LxW 300ppi, and both were fine. The place I go to is in Rochester NY, and has many RIT professors getting fine art prints made on the textured papers, and I assume they would be quite critical of their final image. So you probably just got a bad print.

[paul_wilson2]

This sounds like operator error. It's probably impossible to really conclude anything over the internet without seeing actual prints, but it sounds like the operator didn't know Photoshop and didn't know the printer driver. The strong sepia tone of the prints is especially indicative of this.

 

I'm happy with the B&W prints I'm getting from a 2200. I scan B&W negs as color positives on a Multi Pro and then use Channel Mixer in PS to get them neutral. I then print using the Photo-Realistic mode in the printer driver.

[paul_wilson2]

I should also mention I'm using the matte black ink on matte paper.

[paul_kerfoot]

Jeff

 

Can't hurt to run a printer check test to verify the heads are 100% clean. The pigment based inks seem more prone to clogging than dye based inks.

[jackflesher]

First off, you stated "I forget the paper at the moment." The paper used makes a HUGE difference in the quality of the B&W output with the Epson Ultrachrome inks, and the fine-art matte or watercolor are the best. I further suspect your printer does not have good paper profiles loaded. (He should check out Bill Atkinson's site and download his profiles.) I got terrible B&W results initially with my 2200, but then I learned how to use the paper profiles properly, tweak the custom settings and use the PS print dialog properly to get it all looking exactly the way I want it. For sure, B&W on the 2200/7600/9600 is very, very good with the proper paper, but it is not as good as a traditional print. OTOH dedicated Quad-tone or Pizo systems produce quite superb B&W results -- like selenium or platinum-toned traditionals.

 

BTW, I hope to take delivery of my own 9600 in a few weeks...

 

Cheers,

[cjogo]

Coming from the darkroom >>>and printing silver since 1974---I have tried just about all papers/ink combinations--not every printer actually....and have found my best result is with OFOTO.com ~~~ the Duralife paper looks great and it is archival for 100 years..Kodaks newest software makes for perfect neutral B&W ...even at 20X24 (their largest) and none of the pix/aberations from inkjet...this is real photo paper---we transfer fairly large 50-100 mg RGB files--takes about 3 days to our door!!!

 

C JoGO

 

http://fp2k.redshift.com/cjogo/c__joseph_gough.htm

[qdb]

I use an Epson 7600, and would offer these comments

 

First, at what resolution was your print printed? It could be that an operator used to making big prints on a 9600 has printed at 720x720, where you would lose fine detail and start to see dots. Dots should be virtually invisible without a loup. Resolution is excellent - my dealer told me of a customer who complained his 9600 was *too* sharp :-). But you need to print at 1440 or 2880.

 

As to color, what you say about the print leaves me in serious doubt about this operator's color management system. I can get a perfect screen to print match in my full color managed workflow.

 

with regard to B&W, you can get *perfectly* neutral prints from the 7600 and 9600 if you use the right driver - ImagePrint 5 is the best choice here, and you'll get the best results on matte paper.

 

These printers are capable of exhibition quality color and B&W prints. If that is not what you are seeing in the prints you have received, try another operator, because it surely is not the printer...

 

Quentin

[saulzelan]

I have had several prints made by Rob Reiter, owner of the light room in Berkeley, on his new epson 9600, and the results have been outstanding. these include both color and b/w prints. the prints come out as continuous tone prints with incredible resolution, contrast and sharpness. the b/w prints are very neutral, and could be tweaked to have any color cast you desire, i imagine, since they are being printed with 7 color inks. he scans at about 3000 dpi (for medium format) and prints with a proprietary RIP, so this may affect the quality that he is able to achieve. he matched both my darkroom guide prints for color and b/w very well. the moral of the story is i think that the skill of your master printer is hugely important in the quality of the outcome!